verfahren anlegen

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The emphasized "SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE" and the confirmation gate (nothing changes without bestaetigt=true; the response then carries the counter-question) disclose mutating behavior and a safety workflow well beyond the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, since a create is a write but not destructive. Remaining gaps are minor for a write tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the all-caps write warning, then purpose with examples, then the definition that disambiguates a Verfahren, then the confirmation condition. No filler sentences and the most consequential constraint (the write) comes first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter, 2-required mutation tool with no output schema and no destructive annotation, the description covers the essential: what is written, what counts as a Verfahren, and the confirmation gate that governs execution. It leaves return format and the non-required fields (ordner, stelle, stand) to the schema, which is acceptable given the schema documents them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 71%, and the schema already documents the two highest-risk parameters thoroughly (art's example list, bestaetigt's full semantics). The description's type list for Verfahren duplicates the art field rather than adding syntax or format guidance, so the schema carries the semantic load. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Verfahren in einem Fall anlegen") with concrete examples (Klage, Bußgeldverfahren, Widerspruch, Mahnverfahren, Strafanzeige) and even defines the boundary criterion ("eine eigene Stelle und ein eigenes Aktenzeichen"). The scope is unmistakable, though it never explicitly distinguishes creating a new Verfahren from the sibling verfahren_setzen, which an agent comparing the two would need.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a hard prerequisite for use: "Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer," which tells the agent exactly when the call is allowed to take effect. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when not to create a Verfahren (e.g. when one already exists), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.